Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Olsen may retire, is Thomas the guy?


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Olsen is a natural in the booth and after the sh%t show this year, I have a feeling he is probably gone. They needed to get Thomas ready to fill the role (along with Manhertz) to take over.

Thomas has flashed and meh on Manhertz. I don't think they can afford to use a pick on a TE with all the needs on this team. 

I would like to see them get Thomas ready to fill those big shoes next season. Do you all think he can do the job or just another JAG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes,

Thomas was known to be raw coming in.  It was known he has rarely blocked coming in.

He's a dam good recieving TE though.  And has looked great when he's had to step in for Olsen.  His lack of blocking skills have kept him off from being in at the TE2 role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jmac said:

Olsen is a natural in the booth and after the sh%t show this year, I have a feeling he is probably gone. They needed to get Thomas ready to fill the role (along with Manhertz) to take over.

Thomas has flashed and meh on Manhertz. I don't think they can afford to use a pick on a TE with all the needs on this team. 

I would like to see them get Thomas ready to fill those big shoes next season. Do you all think he can do the job or just another JAG.

yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I would hope that whoever is running the team gives him a shot. No reason not to if Olsen is gone. 2 cheap years left and you should know what you got after his first year starting. Sign a vet in the 3-5M range who can play with/for Thomas. End the Manhertz era. 
 

   Tough question is how much can you get him on the field THIS year. If we are 5-7, do you start limiting Olsen’s snaps? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...